Come on the guy is contributing big time. He just caught two TDs in a game. Are we seriously questioning him?

What I have noticed is he is now making the plays when it counts. Cruicial third downs conversions and TDs when needed. Clutch plays when needed. Garcon does the same on more consistent basis. Hank is coming along fine. At this point I put Hank ahead of Morgan. Heck I think he has even outplayed Moss this season. All though I do like the effort Moss has put forth.

1. Check out the team receiving stats. They all have darn near the same stats. Garcon would have some amazing stats if he hadn't been injured.

2. Apparently this is what the fanbase expects...

- Garcon to put up gaudy numbers- Hankers to put up Calvin Johnson numbers- But for Kyle Shannahan to not pass so much...- To continue leading the league in rushing

LMFAO

You can't be that stupid. Even if in a mocking tone. Really. Get a clue.

Sorry you were called out for being wrong. Don't make a mockery of it.

Instead of Calvin Johnson why don't we replace that with Hartline, TSmith, RCobb, TYHilton, CShorts, or MWallace. That would be more appropriate. Exaggerate much????????????????????

Not sure how you could even elude to the other 3 (whether mocking or otherwise)............ Keep reaching..........

As I said before, he has had a good past 2 games. I have been happy with those --- it the prior 5 I was unhappy with............... I prefer consistency.

markshark84 wrote:Why because it is my opinion (based on direct observation of Hankerson, his teammates, and other WRs in the league) that he is not performing to where he should be? You may disagree, but it isn't ignorance. Know the difference.

Stopped reading when I saw this. Don't let fact gets in the way of your "opinions".

Calling someone ignorant just means they lack knowledge. It's not an insult.

I don't see it that way. That's why I take such offense to it.

The definition of "ignorant" is someone that lacks knowledge or training --- being unlearned. The opinions I post very rarely are not backed up by stats, experience, or a general football understanding. I believe my posts regarding Hankerson were backed up by such information/circumstances/traits for WHY I believe he has not progressed. As such, whether this is correct or incorrect --- it is NOT ignorant. My post(s) were not from lack of knowledge or training --- more a difference of opinion.

And when someone says that I "lack knowledge" because we have a difference of opinion ----- the hypocrisy of that very statement makes me

I have no problem if CLL disagrees with me. I couldn't care less. Many have --- and many will continue to disagree with me. That is what this board is for --- to discuss/argue things. Right? That is why I chose this board to post on above the others (and this was after previous posters claimed that the "inside circle" will just gang up on you"). I have strong opinions, but NONE of them are without reasoning, thought, or ample background information to support them. I was not ignorant. CLL was incorrect in saying so. I get upset when people resort to name-calling because they can't back up their statements otherwise.

Last edited by markshark84 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

markshark84 wrote:The definition of "ignorant" is someone that lacks knowledge or training --- being unlearned.

Yeah, for someone who is such a "learned" football expert , you overly critizize a WR who is essentially playing his rookie campaign due to last years injury.

A "learned" football expert would know that it takes MOST WR's 2-3 years to find their way in the NFL.

So that would insinuate a lack of knowledge, thus ignorance on the subject. Especially when you comment in such a condescending tone towards a poster who was celebrating.

markshark84 wrote:I don't see it that way.

Apparently, that's been an issue for you for the past few pages.

I disagree with you, CounterTrey, about 3 people and NFL.com. Who's the common denominator in this situation?

I guess you conveniently stop reading when you don't want to fight a losing battle...................

Again you are making your "opinions" and ATTEMPTING to use them as if they are fact. Your "knowledge" is merely opinion. So again LEARN the definition. And quit resorting name calling.

Wasn't it initially 3-4 years anyway...... Now it's 2-3. Make a deicision and stick with it........

As far as disagreeing ---- again very similar to the entire JC thing. The collective "peanut gallery" here agreed and there were stats to support it....... But I was still right. We'll see where Hankerson is in 2 years. It is my opinion that he will very well still be a skin, but he won't be a Garcon. And if you are ok with that, that's cool. It is my expectation that our 1-3 rd picks are top performers. If they aren't they failed to meet MY expectations. You can have different ones. That's cool, but don't condescend me for having my own opinions and setting the bar high --- as most successful teams do.

Trust me, I'd love to be wrong. I'd love to see Hankerson get his footing and make clean catches and run precise routes --- but he still has a good deal of work to do. I do believe he has had a good couple games, but those issues are still there. Those have not improved. I personally believe that in order for Hankerson to be consistent, he needs to fix those issues.

And I am not trying to be condescending. I disagreed. Apparently you have no clue how to have a difference of opinion.

Last edited by markshark84 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:48 am, edited 2 times in total.

markshark84 wrote:I guess you conveniently stop reading when you don't want to fight a losing battle...................

Why would I keep reading when the first thing out your mouth was wrong? You said that you compared him to the other receivers on the roster and he falls short. However, the stats prove otherwise... I'm sure you still have nothing to say about that.

markshark84 wrote:I guess you conveniently stop reading when you don't want to fight a losing battle...................

Why would I keep reading when the first thing out your mouth was wrong? You said that you compared him to the other receivers on the roster and he falls short. However, the stats prove otherwise... I'm sure you still have nothing to say about that.

Wrong? No. You didn't understand and immediately thought I was refering to stats -- which I wasn't. Again, the "I stopped reading" statement was merely an attempt to move away from my points. "Performance" (or even progression) isn't about stats per se. It is much larger --- ESPECIALLY for a young WR. I thought you would understand that. Guess not.

The specific items I initially mentioned that he has deficiencies in had NOTHING to do with stats (i.e., footwork, balance, agility, catching). You used stats in an effort to disprove my opinions ---- stats that were ultimately irrelevant since there are no stats on balance and bobbled passes --- you know, the things I actually cited. You made it about stats when it was never about that.

You did a good job of side stepping my true intent and placing words in my mouth. But that still doesn't take away from the fact that all my observations are correct. Hankerson does not have good balance or hands. I should have been more clear, but it was too easy to proved your statistical statements incorrect.

Besides ---- your "stats" or "rules" are ever-changing (i.e., from 3-4 magically to 2-3). You can't make up the rules to this as you go along................

And if you want me to comment on his stats --- they are on par with everyone outside of Garcon (based on all things equal) in catches and yards. I don't dispute that. I think that is fine, but my complaints weren't about stats. They are about balance, footwork, and bobbles. I personally think that his YAC is telling in this respect -- Hanks is not on par with the others -- even Paulsen has a higher YAC average.......

Last edited by markshark84 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

markshark84 wrote:It is my expectation that our 1-3 rd picks are top performers.

You have expectations for our Skins?

Honestly, I came into this season with very low- no expectations. For our draft picks it was the same thing for me because our program hasn't been stable in over a decade.

Fast forward to today and what we've seen.. well yea, maybe from now on I'd expect our early draft picks to work out better since we seem to have stability.

Maybe look at it that way bro?

Haha. I also had low expectations this year. The team has greatly exceeded those. In fact, this is the first year (since 2007 I believe) that I have been more than 1 game off on my pre-season record prediction.

But I will always set expectations for every player. Maybe it is because I am in a profession where you are constantly graded/analyzed. But, as I have said, everything is relative. Do you see me complaining about Robinson or Briscoe or Paul? No -- because I don't believe they have the ability to be a high level performer. We have more invested in Hankerson, therefore we need to receive greater output.

Honestly, take a look at how Belichick analyzes his players. It is brutal. I am similar. You need to expect maximum effort and execution. I am not satisfied unless I see 100%. I believe Hankerson can give us more and I see very specific things he must improve upon to get there.

However, I agree with you in that ANY pick made by Danny/Vinny should just be disregarded (or at least I hope that is what you are saying). Hankerson was drafted by MS/BA --- therefore I do have expectations.

Countertrey wrote:Guys... Consider taking it to smack. This thread is about Hank...

This thread should have been moved to smack when CLL resorted to name calling.

I never go to smack since I enjoy actually discussing football and don't enjoy these types of exchanges, but as you can see I will not allow someone to inaccurately accuse me of being something I am not.

I tried to keep it about Hank, but CLL instead decided it was more constructive to just start throwing out insults..................